Supreme Court acquits appellant due to non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in milk adulteration case: Mohd. Zafar vs. State of Uttarakhand (2009) INSC 123 (18 August 2009)

Date of the Judgment: 18 August 2009
Citation: Mohd. Zafar vs. State of Uttarakhand (2009) INSC 123
Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi, J., Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

In a significant ruling concerning food adulteration laws, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of ensuring fair trial rights to an accused. The case revolves around the alleged violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, where a milk sample taken from the appellant was found to be substandard. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the failure to properly serve the Public Analyst’s report to the accused, thereby impeding his right to have the sample re-examined, warranted the quashing of the conviction. The bench, comprising Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, delivered a judgment that underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings.

Case Background

On April 3, 1979, a Food Inspector took a sample of milk from Mohd. Zafar (the appellant). The sample was found to be substandard upon analysis. Subsequently, a case was initiated against Mohd. Zafar for violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Special Judicial Magistrate (E.O.), Roorkee, convicted Mohd. Zafar, sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and under Section 7(i) of the Act, with both sentences running concurrently.

Aggrieved by this decision, Mohd. Zafar appealed to the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, who upheld the conviction on August 19, 1987. Zafar then challenged the Sessions Court’s decision before the High Court of Uttarakhand, which also affirmed the conviction on April 17, 2006.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and related provisions.

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides a crucial right to the accused:
“… the report of the Public Analyst which was to be served on the appellant by the Local (Health) Authority had not been delivered to him and as such his option to have the second sample of milk analysed by the Central Food Laboratory had been foreclosed.”

This section ensures that the accused is informed of the Public Analyst’s report and has the opportunity to have the second sample of the food analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. This right is essential for a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the findings of the Public Analyst.

The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Arguments

The primary argument advanced by the appellant was that the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not complied with. Specifically, the report of the Public Analyst, which should have been served on the appellant by the Local (Health) Authority, was not properly delivered to him. This failure, according to the appellant, foreclosed his right to have the second sample of milk analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.

The defense contended that the address in the dispatch register was defective, with errors in the appellant’s father’s name and address. The appellant argued that merely having the communication received by his grandfather did not constitute sufficient compliance with the law, as he was not properly identified or addressed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were complied with in this case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court considered the importance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, emphasizing the valuable right it provides to the accused to have the sample re-examined by the Central Food Laboratory.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent judgments of conviction. The Court held that the failure to properly serve the Public Analyst’s report on the appellant, as required by Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was a critical error.

The Court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge had noted discrepancies in the address in the dispatch register, including errors in the appellant’s father’s name and address. While the lower courts had taken the view that receipt of the communication by the appellant’s grandfather was sufficient compliance, the Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court emphasized that Section 13(2) grants a valuable right to the accused to have the sample re-examined by the Central Food Laboratory. This right should not be taken away lightly. The prosecution had the responsibility to show that the report was sent to the appellant with proper identification and appropriate addressing to ensure its delivery.

The Supreme Court found that even if the report had been received by the appellant’s grandfather, it would not constitute sufficient compliance with Section 13(2), given the serious consequences of a criminal matter.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the statutory rights of the accused under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court emphasized that the right to have a sample re-examined by the Central Food Laboratory is a valuable safeguard that must be strictly observed to ensure a fair trial.

Fact:Law

Key Takeaways

• Strict compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential to protect the rights of the accused.
• The prosecution must ensure that the Public Analyst’s report is properly served on the accused, with correct identification and addressing.
• Failure to comply with procedural safeguards can lead to the quashing of convictions in food adulteration cases.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and strict compliance with statutory requirements in cases involving the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It clarifies that the right to have a sample re-examined under Section 13(2) is a valuable right that must be protected.

Conclusion

In Mohd. Zafar vs. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The judgment underscores the necessity of ensuring that the accused is properly informed and has the opportunity to exercise their right to have the sample re-examined, reinforcing the principles of fairness and justice in food adulteration cases.